Of course, as long as they conform to the hierarchy. But there are plenty of women in ministry in the Catholic church. They're just not ordained, and they have a specific ministry that is related to their gender, distinctively different from that of the men, and under the authority of male priests.

Then again, the argument can be made that Baptists aren't opposed to women in ministry either. There are also plenty of them. There are more women employed in ministry roles by SBC churches than in any other Protestant denomination, and I'd say that in most cases, they have more freedom in their ministry than Catholic nuns do, and are subject to less authoritarian structure. Most of them also have roles that are gender-specific, and fit with their character and spiritual gifts as women.

The bottom line in this discussion is that self-proclaimed "progressives" can be just as intolerant of those who don't hold the same views as they accuse "fundamentalists" of being. "We're prophetic and you're not."

Dave Roberts wrote:Sandy, I love your glittering generalizations--"many," "large," "we're prophetic," and others about churches. I guess you get a page from Trump--when you don't have facts, generalize.

Ed: Dave, I agree that Sandy frequently uses words and phrases that leave what he means quite unclear, he is not the only one.

Trudy and I are acquainted with with Catholic Nuns here in upstate Ny who essentially keep the parishes where they serve in operation, and the task they perform, contrary to Sandy's statement their specific ministries are not gender specific nor distinctively different from that of the men, (brothers,serving the church but not ordained) and under the authority of the Priests. "Male Priest" in Catholicism is a redundancy. It is true that there are certain "Priestly functions" that Nuns are not not permitted to carry out. Absolutism of sins being but one, performing weddings another I will stop there before I get in too deep.

All of this hinges around the "discernment model" for decision making that was adopted in Greensboro. Those who want to change the statement on employing gays think this is their opportunity. Those who fear changing the policy have raised a smokescreen that this is to ditch the hiring policy. I heard neither of those mentioned in the discussions at the General Assembly. I have talked previously with Suzi about the hiring policy, and the stands CBF has taken. She feels that we are in the right place already in that both sides are about equally upset, so that positions CBF about where it needs to be.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

Dave Roberts wrote:All of this hinges around the "discernment model" for decision making that was adopted in Greensboro. Those who want to change the statement on employing gays think this is their opportunity. Those who fear changing the policy have raised a smokescreen that this is to ditch the hiring policy. I heard neither of those mentioned in the discussions at the General Assembly. I have talked previously with Suzi about the hiring policy, and the stands CBF has taken. She feels that we are in the right place already in that both sides are about equally upset, so that positions CBF about where it needs to be.

Ed: Dave, since you heard neither "Those who want to change the statement on employing gays think this is their opportunity" nor "Those who fear changing the policy have raised a smokescreen that this is to ditch the hiring policy have raised a smokescreen that this is to ditch the hiring policy " how did you come up with them? I would agree that I heard no presenter express either of these thoughts verbatim. I did however hear hallway and dinning area discussion that each could pretty much be summed up as meaning such. I did vote for the adoption of the discernment model but am concerned about how it may be interpreted in practice. I can not say that I would agree with Susi as I read your interpretation of how she feels unless she still thinks that at least the hiring process discussions, in it self, is good. But then I have had no personal discussion with her since the BFNE meeting at METRO BC in NYC the spring of 2014.

I came back to add a statement; I think Sandy's title for this thread is missleading it would be better if it said, not everyone in CBF is happy about everything. Even Jesus, didn't keep the disciples happy all the time.

It seems that the hiring policy is going to have to be one way or the other. I like the comment about both sides being equally upset, so it must be in the right place. If you've ever served in a church, you know exactly what that means.

I was around when CBF started up, belonged to one of its most supportive congregations for more than a decade, and participated in a number of its general assemblies and regional meetings. Among the things which I found attractive about it was that in its polity, it really did strive to be genuinely true to its Baptist identity and roots. While it did identify some common threads related to its organizational structure, it does allow churches to become involved, or disengage, pretty much at will. It has made policy, and identified some theological perspectives that are part of its in-house guidelines regarding employees. The hiring policy, and the funding policy, represent the will of their constituency.

I think they need to be careful. Hiring is a personnel matter, not a place to make a statement. Using the denominational structure to make statements is certainly a big reason why many churches joined CBF, and distanced themselves from the SBC. And while it has attracted some Baptists who are more theologically liberal, especially on LGBT issues, it is still largely made up of Baptists who believe that all sinners must go down the pathway to conviction and repentance in order to receive grace that saves. The biggest difference between them and the SBC is that they're willing to continue ministry cooperation with you if you feel differently, but they also feel that the fellowship organization needs to be sympathetic to the perspective of its constituents, and also understand that's part of its identity.

Yes, it the hiring policy will have to be one way or another. You can't really say the gospel is for everyone but we are going to discriminate in hiring practices. Too many people just won't accept that argument anymore. They'll be come non-church attenders before they'll keep living with the hypocrisy or they'll find a more progressive church to attend.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Yes, it the hiring policy will have to be one way or another. You can't really say the gospel is for everyone but we are going to discriminate in hiring practices. Too many people just won't accept that argument anymore. They'll be come non-church attenders before they'll keep living with the hypocrisy or they'll find a more progressive church to attend.

Ed: Keep in mind that Bonney is no longer Baptist let alone a CBFer. .

Thanks for the compliment Ed. While I like a lot of people in the CBF, it is more conservative than the ABC and just some what less conservative than the SBC. It is a group caught in a limbo of the past and refusing to move on to the future.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Thanks for the compliment Ed. While I like a lot of people in the CBF, it is more conservative than the ABC and just some what less conservative than the SBC. It is a group caught in a limbo of the past and refusing to move on to the future.

Ed: Tim where do you get your information about CBF? Have you ever attended one of our national Assemblies? I have attended all but two since 1998. Those two I missed due to conflicts with the ABC biennial. And one for a missions conference. A couple years we managed to make both the CBF and ABC major meeting. I have also attended state meetings of CBF in Florida and Kentucky and regional meetings of the North Central Region in Bloomington Indiana, Chicago and Cape Gerardo Ill while you where still a Baptist pastor in that general area. and never saw you , We did both attend An ABC BIENNIAL in DENVER. Trudy and I have also attended most of the CBFNE meetings (2 a year) since coming to NY in 2002. in New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Main & Massachusetts. ABCNYS is no more or less liberal than any where I have experienced CBF and ABC OHIO was even more conservative than, NYS. And as I think you know the the two organizations ABC-USA and CBF, held over lapping meetings one year in Washington D.C.. It was Impossible to tell to which group a person belonged with out seeing a name tag. CBF concentrates on evaluating and finding sources to meet local needs rather than developing national programs more so than ABC and I believe the Methodist.

BTW, Limbo is a Catholic invention with reference to the After Life. We in CBF are more concerned with the here and now, leading to life everlasting.

Ed, yes I've attended a CBF General Assembly and I'm a former contributing member of the CBF.

Don't get me wrong, I really like CBF folks. They just aren't as progressive s they think they are. Some CBF people I know in this area think they are progressives because they'll ordain women (despite their church never having a woman pastor). That only counts as progressive if you are a Baptist. The CBF is more conservative than the ABC and the UMC, the two most conservative mainline denominations. Sorry you don't want to hear that. But that is how the CBF is perceived outside of the CBF unless you are a Southern Baptist where everyone else looks like a liberal.

Last comment on the CBF Ed and then I'll quit talking about Baptists for a while.

I think the CBF is a great organization. It just isn't an organization that I ended up being very involved in because, when it started, there were so few CBF churches available. Thus I went ABC at the time.

But the CBF fits a very specific small niche. It is mostly a niche for disaffected Southern Baptists and churches. It does a decent job of filling that niche. But I wonder about the future of such a niche, particularly if they continue to try to straddle the fence on big issues.

My denomination is having similar problems in that we are so evenly divided on the issue of LGBT acceptance that we are near schism.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Last comment on the CBF Ed and then I'll quit talking about Baptists for a while.

I think the CBF is a great organization. It just isn't an organization that I ended up being very involved in because, when it started, there were so few CBF churches available. Thus I went ABC at the time.

But the CBF fits a very specific small niche. It is mostly a niche for disaffected Southern Baptists and churches. It does a decent job of filling that niche. But I wonder about the future of such a niche, particularly if they continue to try to straddle the fence on big issues.

My denomination is having similar problems in that we are so evenly divided on the issue of LGBT acceptance that we are near schism.

Ed: Tim you are some what behind the curve on your knowledge of CBF. Each year there are more and more of the under fifty crowd who have never been Southen Baptist.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Thanks for the compliment Ed. While I like a lot of people in the CBF, it is more conservative than the ABC and just some what less conservative than the SBC. It is a group caught in a limbo of the past and refusing to move on to the future.

It would be hard to put a finger on CBF itself, looking at its leadership, and say that it is just somewhat less conservative than the SBC. Within the organizational structure of CBF, including its staff and volunteer leadership, it is much less conservative than the SBC, and probably in the same theological and philosophical ball park as ABC-USA. But it probably has a better grasp of its constituency than ABC does. The progressive to liberal members in CBF are, more or less, groups that are parts of churches. The structure and affiliation are very loose, and if it decided to use its organizational status to make statements on social issues, it would find itself losing the support it needs to do ministry. It is genuinely Baptist in that it doesn't place restrictions on cooperation. Who it chooses to hire has no bearing on any of that.

Any denomination or group formed as a split or splinter off another one has difficulty with its identity, and with moving on to the future, since it is hard to get away from the issues that prompted its origins. I was around during those early days of CBF, and honestly, I think that Daniel Vestal and the others who met together and got things moving really did intend to be a fellowship within the denomination, envisioning that there would be a much larger base of support, as much as 45% of the churches, given the vote totals at conventions, and that their re-direction of financial support would eventually force convention leadership toward a more moderate stance on their leadership. That had to be modified when the numbers just didn't develop. Personally, I think CBF would have been better off deciding that it would become a separate denomination, leaving the fence sitters and depending on support from churches that were wholly committed to their mission and purpose. More would have joined, I think.

Ed: I agree with Sandy when he says he thinks " Daniel Vestal and the others who met together and got things moving really did intend to be a fellowship within the denomination." And I am rather sure that the insurgent leadership believed that also and that was why they put on the pressure to prevent us from operating within the SBC denominational Structure. I have been a bit surprised at the number of churches that continued to support the CP although their tolerance of members who are involved with CBF tends to render the church mute at the Associational and Convention levels. I anticipate that being something of a problem for me when we start RVing full time next spring., For the winter I do not anticipate any problem finding a church in Georgia, North or South Carolina,or possibly in Virginia or Alabama where we can feel at home.

I think Ed nails it mentioning that many CBF churches are till dually aligned, at least partially. That creates ambivalence on the local level even if not at the national level.

If the UMC splits over sexuality issues our polity wouldn't allow for half way. You'd be in one denomination or the other. Honestly, I think that makes for a cleaner break. Not less painful. But maybe cleaner.

Timothy Bonney wrote:I think Ed nails it mentioning that many CBF churches are till dually aligned, at least partially. That creates ambivalence on the local level even if not at the national level.

If the UMC splits over sexuality issues our polity wouldn't allow for half way. You'd be in one denomination or the other. Honestly, I think that makes for a cleaner break. Not less painful. But maybe cleaner.

Ed" Question Tim, if the UMC should split over the homosexual issue how would the current assets be split?